Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   The climate war? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=769574)

  • Feb 17, 2014, 08:53 PM
    paraclete
    confirmation of the war
    Growing up in a climate of fear - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

    This isn't a war againt people at least not yet, but it will be when the populations shift, where will the millions in Bangladesh go, just as an example, to the west seems logical, they can't go south, they can't go north, there are natural barriers and the east doesn't offer land and opportunity. To do so invites war. Where will the millions of Indonesia and the Phillipines go when their islands flood? I know one place where it will be pointless for them to come because there will be less water than there is now. What is a food basket will become marginal lands. hemned in by the vast Pacific and Indian Oceans they have two choices, neither of which are optimal or even logical. Nor are these instances the tip of the iceberg because every option invites war.

    Right now we can't stop a war in Syria, how will we stop the wars of the future?, the climate wars
  • Feb 17, 2014, 09:18 PM
    talaniman
    Where will Australians go for that matter after a major climate catastrophe?
  • Feb 17, 2014, 10:21 PM
    paraclete
    For us Tasmania is a possibility whilst our population isn't too large, if Britain could do it so could we. But we shouldn't worry about Australia we understand the harsh realities of climate since we have every expression within our borders, our concerns rest beyond our borders since those to the north will have to go somewhere and an ocean represents an immediate boundry forcing them in the other direction, Africa is a possibility, they could reverse the initial migration paths.

    If we have concerns for climate change they are that our farm land becomes marginal
  • Feb 17, 2014, 11:16 PM
    talaniman
    But Clete what if they process you to a gulag you know like Manus Island before they let you walk freely about. After all you would be a refugee?
  • Feb 18, 2014, 12:53 AM
    paraclete
    Not in Tasmania, we have owned it for a long time as a place of last retreat, of course we may just give the mainland back to the abo's, they understand living in a harsh environment with no modern conveniences
  • Feb 24, 2014, 12:24 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Tens of thousands evacuated, flights cancelled, as Indonesia's Mt Kelud volcano erupts - Australia Network News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

    this is the second Indonesian volcano in eruption mode and this is far more massive that the first, remember we are only ever five volcanos away from nuclear winter, so I expect this one will be a game changer for the time being, Just the other day we were told that an indonesian volcano is responsible for the foul weather in the UK, apparently it has disrupted the jet stream or destabilised other weather systems. I would like to know who is to blame for the CO2 and methane and other greenhouse gasses it is spewing, can we count that against Indonesian targets, do they even have a target?

    Didn't I mention the other day that the pseudo-scientists of climate change love to change their models to cover the repeated failure of their alarmist predictions to materialize? Yes, I believe I did, and here we go again...

    Volcanic eruptions ‘contributed to global warming pause’, scientists claim


    Quote:

    “We show that climate model simulations without the effects of early 21st century volcanic eruptions overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998,” wrote Dr Benjamin Santer in the journal Nature Geoscience.
    And that's the problem with basing your science on simulations, it ain't the real thing.
  • Feb 24, 2014, 12:58 PM
    Tuttyd
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Didn't I mention the other day that the pseudo-scientists of climate change love to change their models to cover the repeated failure of their alarmist predictions to materialize? Yes, I believe I did, and here we go again...

    Volcanic eruptions 'contributed to global warming pause', scientists claim




    And that's the problem with basing your science on simulations, it ain't the real thing.

    It's called modifying the hypothesis in the hope of saving the theory. I think I mentioned that before in a different thread.
  • Feb 24, 2014, 01:28 PM
    speechlesstx
    AKA moving the goalpost.
  • Feb 24, 2014, 01:31 PM
    Tuttyd
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    AKA moving the goalpost.

    You could call it that, but as I pointed out before that's how science works.

    Best not to idealize science too much.
  • Feb 24, 2014, 02:28 PM
    paraclete
    we need to get this straight there is science and there is climate change theory. we should stop calling computer predictions science
  • Feb 24, 2014, 04:50 PM
    talaniman
    And this I how politics and money works

    Exxon CEO sues to stop fracking project, hurts his property values#

    Quote:

    As ExxonMobil's CEO, it's Rex Tillerson's job to promote the hydraulic fracturing enabling the recent oil and gas boom, and fight regulatory oversight. The oil company is the biggest natural gas producer in the U.S., relying on the controversial drilling technology to extract it. The exception is when Tillerson's $5 million property value might be harmed. Tillerson has joined a lawsuit that cites fracking's consequences in order to block the construction of a 160-foot water tower next to his and his wife's Texas home.
    The Wall Street Journal reports the tower would supply water to a nearby fracking site, and the plaintiffs argue the project would cause too much noise and traffic from hauling the water from the tower to the drilling site. The water tower, owned by Cross Timbers Water Supply Corporation, “will sell water to oil and gas explorers for fracing [sic] shale formations leading to traffic with heavy trucks on FM 407, creating a noise nuisance and traffic hazards,” the suit says.
  • Feb 24, 2014, 04:52 PM
    paraclete
    what goes around comes around
  • Feb 27, 2014, 08:09 AM
    speechlesstx
    Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming



    I expect CNN to jump on this and inform him the debate is over.
  • Feb 27, 2014, 09:11 AM
    speechlesstx
    Now that a Greenpeace co-founder has been outed as a denier, back to fear-mongering "science."

    Study: Global Warming Will Cause 180,000 More Rapes by 2099
  • Feb 27, 2014, 09:23 AM
    excon
    Hello again, Steve:I've said this before, but it bears repeating..

    I'm NOT a scientist.. I'm just a guy looking around. When I was a kid, we used to throw our trash on the ground, I guess cause we thought the land was soooo big, that the trash wouldn't matter.. But, it did.

    When I was in the Navy, we threw our trash off the fantail of the ship, I guess cause we thought the ocean was soooo big, that the trash wouldn't matter... But, it did.

    Now, we're throwing our trash into the air, I guess because we think it's sooo big, that the trash won't matter... But, it does, and I can't imagine ANYONE thinking it doesn't..

    excon

  • Feb 27, 2014, 10:10 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Steve:

    I've said this before, but it bears repeating..

    I'm NOT a scientist.. I'm just a guy looking around. When I was a kid, we used to throw our trash on the ground, I guess cause we thought the land was soooo big, that the trash wouldn't matter.. But, it did.

    When I was in the Navy, we threw our trash off the fantail of the ship, I guess cause we thought the ocean was soooo big, that the trash wouldn't matter... But, it did.

    Now, we're throwing our trash into the air, I guess because we think it's sooo big, that the trash won't matter... But, it does, and I can't imagine ANYONE thinking it doesn't..

    excon



    Hello again ex,

    For the 9726th time, no one thinks throwing trash in the air is a good thing. CO2 is not trash, plants need it. But I don't like smog any more than the next guy.

    Now, lying to us about climate change isn't a good thing either. Fear-mongering about climate change - especially while profiting nicely off your preaching while leaving a huge carbon footprint - isn't a good thing. Enriching your political cronies off of climate change, isn't a good thing. Using climate change as a power grab, isn't a good thing. Using the jackboot approach against those who may disagree with you or, egad, dare to actually present research that contradicts your agenda, isn't a good thing.

    One might think you and I would agree on those things, too.
  • Feb 27, 2014, 10:39 AM
    talaniman
    If CO2 was all they spewed from factories and refineries you may have a point (Naw you don't since we humans can't breath high levels of CO2, or low levels for very long... science!), but fact is there are many other bi products of burning fossil fuels.

    Science-
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1022151535.htm

    Science-
    Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste | Special Wastes | Wastes | US EPA

    More science-
    Fossil fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote:

    Combustion of fossil fuels generates sulfuric, carbonic, and nitric acids, which fall to Earth as acid rain, impacting both natural areas and the built environment. Monuments and sculptures made from marble and limestone are particularly vulnerable, as the acids dissolve calcium carbonate.
    Fossil fuels also contain radioactive materials, mainly uranium and thorium, which are released into the atmosphere. In 2000, about 12,000 tonnes of thorium and 5,000 tonnes of uranium were released worldwide from burning coal.[SIZE=3][28][/SIZE] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident.[SIZE=3][29][/SIZE]
    Burning coal also generates large amounts of bottom ash and fly ash. These materials are used in a wide variety of applications, utilizing, for example, about 40% of the US production.[SIZE=3][30][/SIZE]..................................Moreover, these environmental pollutions impacts on the human beings because its particles of the fossil fuel on the air cause negative health effects when inhaled by people. These health effects include premature death, acute respiratory illness, aggravated asthma, chronic bronchitis and decreased lung function. So, the poor, undernourished, very young and very old, and people with preexisting respiratory disease and other ill health, are more at risk.[SIZE=3][33][/SIZE]
    You have obviously never lived by heavy industrial factories or refineries. Why do you think your car has to have an omission check regularly?
  • Feb 27, 2014, 10:47 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    If CO2 was all they spewed from factories and refineries you may have a point (Naw you don't since we humans can't breath high levels of CO2, or low levels for very long... science!), but fact is there are many other bi products of burning fossil fuels.

    Science-
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1022151535.htm

    Science-
    Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste | Special Wastes | Wastes | US EPA

    More science-
    Fossil fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    You have obviously never lived by heavy industrial factories or refineries. Why do you think your car has to have an omission check regularly?

    For the 9727th time, no one thinks throwing trash in the air is a good thing. Now address the rest of my post.

    P.S. I also said, "I don't like smog any more than the next guy," so what was the point of your post?
  • Feb 27, 2014, 10:55 AM
    talaniman
    Lots more science to be learned and applied better.
  • Feb 27, 2014, 10:59 AM
    smoothy
    I guess all this snow and bitter cold weather is because its gotten so warm out?
  • Feb 27, 2014, 11:04 AM
    talaniman
    Why is it odd to think the Earth would compensate for cleaning up our filth and restore balance for the life it supports? Adapt or die.
  • Feb 27, 2014, 11:12 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    Lots more science to be learned and applied better.

    Not if they shut down the debate.
  • Feb 27, 2014, 11:21 AM
    excon
    Hello again, Steve:
    Quote:

    CO2 is not trash, plants need it.
    Water isn't trash either, fish need it. But, if YOU breath it, it'll KILL you.

    Besides, we should be worried about what's good for US, not the trees. Since when did you become a treehugger?

    excon
  • Feb 27, 2014, 11:24 AM
    talaniman
    Nothing shuts down debate between opposite believers. Not even calling each others names. It still rages on.
  • Feb 27, 2014, 11:28 AM
    speechlesstx
    In other words, you're ok with all the lies, hypocrisy, thuggery, cronyism etc. by the climate change crowd? And I like trees because they give me shade, take in CO2, produce oxygen and they're a damn sight prettier than pavement.
  • Feb 27, 2014, 01:54 PM
    paraclete
    we are looking at this CO2 thing all wrong, we want to go and live on Mars, Mars has a thin CO2 atmosphere; what could be more logical than we learn to live in a CO2 atmosphere right here on Earth before we go?
  • Feb 27, 2014, 02:18 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    Nothing shuts down debate between opposite believers. Not even calling each others names. It still rages on.

    As I've noted many times now, only one side is trying to silence the other and saying the debate is over, much more insidious than name calling.
  • Feb 27, 2014, 02:27 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    we are looking at this CO2 thing all wrong, we want to go and live on Mars, Mars has a thin CO2 atmosphere; what could be more logical than we learn to live in a CO2 atmosphere right here on Earth before we go?

    Who's this we? It's much too cold and barren for me, the trip is too long and there's a fatwa against going to Mars. But a great point for the true believers, they should get used to it.
  • Mar 8, 2014, 07:21 AM
    excon
    Hello smoothy:

    Quote:

    I guess all this snow and bitter cold weather is because its gotten so warm out?
    Church is NOT a good place to learn your science.

    excon
  • Mar 8, 2014, 07:40 AM
    talaniman
    It might be a good place to hide from the extreme weather though.
  • Mar 8, 2014, 03:09 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Who's this we? It's much too cold and barren for me, the trip is too long and there's [COLOR=#417394]a fatwa against going to Mars[/COLOR]. But a great point for the true believers, they should get used to it.
    We could look at it as the royal we, there being more than one of us, or the human race, or interested parties. You stay home by all means, someone has to use up the CO2 and since when were you concerned about what misguided muslims think? As to the cold and barren landscape what an opportunity to use our irrigation skills to transform the place.

    You see the practicalities don't seem to matter to those who are bored with same old Earth
  • Jun 23, 2014, 12:32 PM
    smoothy
    More common sense from the Supreme court smacking down the epa ENVIRONAZIS.


    Supreme Court limits EPA global warming rules

    Published June 23, 2014 FoxNews.com




    The Supreme Court delivered a setback to the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday, placing limits on the sole Obama administration program already in place to deal with power plant and factory emissions of gases blamed for global warming.
    The decision does not affect recent and highly controversial EPA proposals to set the first-ever national standards for new and existing power plants. One recent proposal would aim for a 30 percent emissions reduction by 2030.

    ADVERTISEMENT


    ADVERTISEMENT


    Rather, at issue was a requirement that companies expanding industrial facilities or building new ones that would increase overall pollution must evaluate ways to reduce carbon emissions. The justices said Monday that the EPA lacks authority in some cases to force companies to do so.
    However, the ruling could nevertheless be used to challenge other aspects of the EPA's effort to deal with global warming.
    The rule in question applies when a company needs a permit to expand facilities or build new ones that would increase overall pollution.
    Under Monday's ruling, EPA can continue to require permits for greenhouse gas emissions for those facilities that already have to obtain permits because they emit other pollutants that EPA has long regulated. But Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court's conservatives in the part of the ruling in which the justices split 5-4, said EPA could not require a permit solely on the basis of greenhouse gas emissions.
    The program at issue is the first piece of EPA's attempt to reduce carbon output from large sources of pollution.
    The utility industry, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 13 states led by Texas asked the court to rule that the EPA overstepped its authority by trying to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the permitting program. The administration failed to get climate change legislation through Congress.
    The outcome does preserve EPA's authority over facilities that already emit pollutants that the agency regulates other than greenhouse gases.
    Scalia, writing for the court, said "EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case." Scalia said the agency wanted to regulate 86 percent of all greenhouse gases emitted from plants nationwide. The agency will be able to regulate 83 percent of the emissions under the ruling, Scalia said.
    EPA said that, as of late March, 166 permits have been issued by state and federal regulators since 2011.
    Permits have been issued to power plants, but also to plants that produce chemicals, cement, iron and steel, fertilizer, ceramics and ethanol. Oil refineries and municipal landfills also have obtained greenhouse gas permits since 2011, EPA said.
    The Associated Press contributed to this report.



    Supreme Court limits EPA global warming rules | Fox News
  • Jun 23, 2014, 12:54 PM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    EPA could not require a permit solely on the basis of greenhouse gas emissions.
    They can and will have increased requirements for disposal and of waste and by products also.

    http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/index.htm

    Quote:

    Scalia, writing for the court, said "EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case." Scalia said the agency wanted to regulate 86 percent of all greenhouse gases emitted from plants nationwide. The agency will be able to regulate 83 percent of the emissions under the ruling, Scalia said.
    Some set back huh!
  • Jun 23, 2014, 01:46 PM
    tomder55
    some victory .... another affirmation from SCOTUS of the EPA's 'mandate' to regulate C02 as a pollutant.
    This comes on the wake of more evidence that the whole global warming fraud was built on a foundation of outright lies and intentionally distorted data .
    Steven Goddard has demonstrated that NOAA and NASA have distorted graphs to make the claim of warming when in fact ,the warmest recent period was in the 1930s . We have been getting steadily cooler since .
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ns-are-global/
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...r-in-the-us-2/
  • Jun 23, 2014, 01:46 PM
    smoothy
    Step in the right direction by the SCOTUS... and don't doubt there will be many more to follow, as there should be. Its an out of control agency with no accountability that really should be shut down. THey have been out of control for far too long.
  • Jun 23, 2014, 02:33 PM
    talaniman
    Who needs clean air and clean water?
  • Jun 23, 2014, 04:04 PM
    paraclete
    a somewhat rhetorical question Tal it seems the Chinese have been on a path to prove we don't aided and abetted by those in other countries who want to shut down polluting industries
  • Jun 23, 2014, 04:13 PM
    smoothy
    Quote:

    Who needs clean air and clean water?
    Except that's not what they are doing... for far too long they have been forcing without any check or ballances.. a radical extremist partisan political agenda on the American people devoid of any Control what-so-ever by elected lawmakers.
  • Jun 23, 2014, 04:31 PM
    tomder55
    Who needs clean air and
    Quote:

    clean water?
    irrelevant bumper sticker slogan that doesn't address the fact that the house of cards that the enviro-wackos built their case on has a foundation fraud and lies.
  • Jun 23, 2014, 04:33 PM
    talaniman
    Well that's a nice way to have a debate spewing right wing anti government clap trap without specifics or sources to make your point.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:15 PM.